Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Design and feasibility testing of a novel group
intervention for young women who binge
drink in groups
Linda Irvine1*, Iain K. Crombie1, Vivien Swanson2, Elena D. Dimova1¤a, Ambrose
J. Melson1¤b, Tracey M. Fraser1, Rosaline Barbour3, Peter M. Rice4, Sheila Allan5
1 Division of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland,
United Kingdom, 2 Psychology Division, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland,
United Kingdom, 3 Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Milton
Keynes, England, United Kingdom, 4 Division of Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Dundee,
Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom, 5 Dundee City Council, Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom
¤a Current address: Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom
¤b Current address: Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, United
Kingdom
Abstract
Background
Young women frequently drink alcohol in groups and binge drinking within these natural
drinking groups is common. This study describes the design of a theoretically and empiri-
cally based group intervention to reduce binge drinking among young women. It also evalu-
ates their engagement with the intervention and the acceptability of the study methods.
Methods
Friendship groups of women aged 18–35 years, who had two or more episodes of binge
drinking (>6 UK units on one occasion; 48g of alcohol) in the previous 30 days, were
recruited from the community. A face-to-face group intervention, based on the Health Action
Process Approach, was delivered over three sessions. Components of the intervention
were woven around fun activities, such as making alcohol free cocktails. Women were fol-
lowed up four months after the intervention was delivered.
Results
The target of 24 groups (comprising 97 women) was recruited. The common pattern of
drinking was infrequent, heavy drinking (mean consumption on the heaviest drinking day
was UK 18.1 units). Process evaluation revealed that the intervention was delivered with
high fidelity and acceptability of the study methods was high. The women engaged positively
with intervention components and made group decisions about cutting down. Twenty two
groups set goals to reduce their drinking, and these were translated into action plans. Reten-
tion of individuals at follow up was 87%.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 1 / 17
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPENACCESS
Citation: Irvine L, Crombie IK, Swanson V, Dimova
ED, Melson AJ, Fraser TM, et al. (2018) Design and
feasibility testing of a novel group intervention for
young women who binge drink in groups. PLoS
ONE 13(3): e0193434. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0193434
Editor: Ethan Moitra, Brown University, UNITED
STATES
Received: September 15, 2017
Accepted: February 9, 2018
Published: March 1, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Irvine et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
files.
Funding: This work was supported by the National
Prevention Research Initiative, MR/J000485/1 to LI
(https://www.mrc.ac.uk/research/initiatives/
national-prevention-research-initiative-npri/). The
funders had no role in study design, data collection
and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of
the manuscript.
Conclusions
This study successfully recruited groups of young women whose patterns of drinking place
them at high risk of acute harm. This novel approach to delivering an alcohol intervention
has potential to reduce binge drinking among young women. The high levels of engagement
with key steps in the behavior change process suggests that the group intervention should
be tested in a full randomised controlled trial.
Introduction
Binge drinking among young women is a recognised public health problem [1]. Binge drink-
ing, involves the consumption of more than six UK units of alcohol (48g of alcohol) on one
occasion [2]. A common pattern for young women is having two to three occasions in a
month, at which large quantities of alcohol are consumed. These episodes are interspersed
with many alcohol-free days [3]. This type of drinking, also termed heavy episodic drinking,
has been widely documented among young people [4]. A recent health survey in Scotland
revealed that almost a quarter of women aged 16 to 34 years consumed more than six UK units
of alcohol on their heaviest drinking day in the past week [5]. Binge drinking places young
women at risk of violence, injuries, drink spiking and unintended and unprotected sex [6–8].
Drinking heavily in pregnancy poses serious risks to the fetus [9]. Women may consume
harmful amounts of alcohol during the pre-pregnancy recognition period [10] and those who
are regular binge drinkers are less likely to stop during pregnancy [11–13].
Reducing the alcohol consumed during binge drinking sessions is challenging as heavy
drinking is viewed by many as a normal activity and being extremely drunk is socially accept-
able [14]. Drinking sessions are often carefully planned and are viewed as an important part of
young people’s lives. This has been described as calculated hedonism [15]. Young women fre-
quently drink in social groups and binge drinking within these groups is common [16, 17].
Lange et al. have introduced the term ‘natural drinking group’ to describe small groups of peo-
ple, ‘bonded by friendship or other interpersonal relationships’, who regularly drink together
[18]. For young people, drinking is mainly about friendship and having fun, where the experi-
ence is shared rather than individual [19]. Much of the pleasure from drinking alcohol comes
from developing and sustaining important relationships and bonding with friends [20].
Alcohol brief interventions (ABIs) are widely used to tackle problem drinking [21]. ABIs
are a heterogeneous group of interventions which are delivered in single or multiple sessions.
They can contain Motivational Interviewing, feedback and advice, self-monitoring of alcohol
consumption, self-help manuals, counselling, and cognitive behavioral therapy [22, 23]. Many
ABIs involve a single session with a total intervention time that can last from 7.5 to 60 minutes.
Trials of ABIs with multiple sessions typically have total intervention times of 50 minutes or
less [21]. Several systematic reviews have concluded that individual level ABIs are effective [21,
24]. However, the most recent systematic reviews report that these are unproven in women
because of insufficient data [21, 22, 25]. Alcohol interventions have also been shown to be
effective in college students although systematic reviews show that the effect sizes are often
small [26, 27]. These interventions may be delivered college students individually or in a group
setting [28]. A recent meta-analysis reported that those containing goal setting and expectancy
challenges were associated with a larger reduction in alcohol consumption [28].
Reducing harmful drinking by young women is complex, because interventions have the
potential to challenge relationships that are highly valued. Group norms can encourage heavy
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 2 / 17
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
drinking [29, 30], but can also promote moderate drinking [31, 32]. Several authors have rec-
ommended that interventions to tackle binge drinking in young people should be targeted at
natural drinking groups [16, 17, 31].
This study describes the design and assesses the acceptability of a community based, tai-
lored intervention with pre-existing friendship groups to tackle binge drinking among young
women. The novel intervention addresses drinking as a fundamental part of friendship, and
seeks to highlight how fun and friendships can be maintained while reducing binge drinking.
The objectives for the study were to develop and test the feasibility and acceptability all of the
methods that will be required for a full randomised controlled trial. Feasibility will be mea-
sured by the success of recruitment, retention, measurement of outcomes, delivery of the inter-
vention and engagement with the intervention. Acceptability will be assessed by a post-study
evaluation of participants’ experiences of the study. The UK MRC guidelines on developing
and evaluating complex interventions [33] stress that initial testing should take place prior to
evaluation of effectiveness. Weaknesses in study design and methodology can be identified
and addressed before undertaking a randomised controlled trial [34].
Materials and methods
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of Dundee Research Ethics
Committee (Reference: UREC 12072). Women, aged 18–35 years, who regularly socialise and
drink together, were invited to take part in the study with their friendship groups. For the
study ‘friendship group’ was self-defined by the participants as a group who regularly drank
together. The age range was chosen because women in this group have the highest prevalence
of binge drinking among women in the UK [35]. Groups of 3 to 8 women were eligible if more
than half of the group members had consumed more than six UK units (>48g of alcohol) in
one session (binge drinking), on two or more occasions during the previous four weeks. This
approach allowed the recruitment of those not meeting the binge drinking criterion so that
friendships groups taking part in the study could remain intact. Retaining the integrity of pre-
existing groups would maximise the impact of group processes on drinking behavior. All par-
ticipants gave their written informed consent prior to recruitment.
Recruitment strategy
Comprehensive co-ordinated recruitment strategies are recommended for community based
studies [36, 37], including mass media approaches, community outreach and web based
recruitment [38, 39]. Participants covering the spectrum from low to high deprivation were
recruited. Socioeconomic status was assessed using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation,
an area based index which allocates scores based on six domains: current income, employment
status, housing tenure, health, educational attainment, and access to communication [40].
Potential participants were purposively recruited in six ways: face to face recruitment by the
study researchers in the community (shopping centres, high streets, community centres, cafes,
gyms, student unions); advertising on two local radio stations; poster panels on buses; univer-
sity and NHS intranets; a Facebook page; and a poster campaign. The study was advertised as a
research project on women’s health and alcohol which focused on “looking good and feeling
great”. The tagline “Glitzed not Blitzed: a study of women and alcohol”, was used to present the
study as an opportunity to have fun with a serious purpose. All forms of advertising provided a
landline phone number, a mobile phone number, an email address, a short code and a website
address. Potential participants were invited to express an interest in the study by contacting
the research team by any of these methods. An individual who expressed an interest in taking
part in the study nominated the group of friends she regularly went drinking with and decided
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 3 / 17
if they were eligible on the entry criterion. This spokesperson was interviewed by telephone to
screen the group for eligibility. All group members were then sent a Participant Information
Sheet, which described the study in detail.
The intervention
The literature on young women’s drinking identified that pre-loading i.e. drinking in a private
residence before going out to clubs or bars [41] and binge drinking [1] are common, being
extremely drunk is socially acceptable [14] and that drinking is mainly about friendship and
having fun [15, 20]. As this literature is limited to studies on individuals, focus groups were
conducted to explore the nature of drinking in groups and to inform the intervention.
The formative research
Seven focus groups involving 45 young women who were friends or work colleagues and who
drank together regularly were used to provide information on the shared group experience.
The women were from diverse socioeconomic groups including university students, young
single mothers and mothers requiring social support, a netball team, solicitors, social work
department employees and mothers attending playgroups. The discussions were recorded and
transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis [42], which was facilitated by
NViVO 9 software. Transcripts were read and initially coded. Two researchers (TMF, AJM)
then examined 4 transcripts for inter-coder verification of emerging codes and themes [43].
To check code interpretation, categories and enquiry lines, analysis meetings involving the
whole research team were conducted.
The analysis identified four major themes: pre-loading, planning of drinking sessions, risk
perception and motivation to change. Pre-loading, drinking before going out, was important
for all groups. It often started as way to save money but then became an important part of the
ritual of going out in a group. Group drinking sessions were usually carefully planned, but the
frequency of these varied according to factors such as responsibilities and disposable income.
Many women did not perceive alcohol-related risks as being relevant to them, despite being
regular binge drinkers. Most had set their own perceived ‘safe limits’ for drinking which were
gained through past experience.
None of the women were motivated to reduce their alcohol consumption. They felt that life
circumstances e.g. family and work commitments, would dictate their alcohol consumption in
the future so they should enjoy drinking while they can. The majority of women could not
identify any social group activities that could replace binge drinking with friends. The per-
ceived benefits of relieving stress, escapism and enjoyment were important to them. They also
felt that peer influences would make it difficult to reduce their alcohol consumption. Even if
they could resist peer influences, they could see few attractive alternatives to alcohol that
would offer the same rewards and felt that there was nothing else available to do with their
group of friends.
Intervention development
The development of the intervention was underpinned by the principles of the Health Action
Process Approach (HAPA) [44], a model emphasising the importance of motivational and
volitional phases of the behavior change process. It was anticipated that motivation to change
drinking behavior within the target population would vary, as would understanding and confi-
dence in using strategies to enact and maintain changes to drinking behavior. The HAPA
incorporates and specifies the relationship between these aspects of the behavior change pro-
cess, whilst also serving as a useful framework for integrating additional components (e.g.
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 4 / 17
subjective norms [45]). It also provided a logical sequencing for the behavior change tech-
niques used in the intervention [46].
The intervention was delivered over three face-to-face sessions, approximately one week
apart, to systematically lead participants through the behavior change strategy. Motivational
Interviewing (MI) techniques, shown to be effective with groups [47] were used to explore and
develop motivation for change as well as facilitating group discussions The specific techniques
used were expressing empathy, using open questions, affirmation and reflective listening.
These were used in discussions highlighting the discrepancy between desired outcomes of
drinking sessions and consequences of excessive alcohol consumption [48, 49]. This was fol-
lowed by a decisional balance exercise and the subsequent change talk provided the opportu-
nity to gain commitment to change.
Each session was structured around a fun social activity in order to enhance engagement,
lessen any concerns about research participation and act as a springboard for discussing inter-
vention topics. Following the structure of the HAPA model, the first session was designed to
promote motivation to change drinking behavior by encouraging the women to review alcohol
outcome expectancies and assess their perception of risk from alcohol related harm. Group
activities were designed to increase action self-efficacy and increase intention to change behav-
ior. The second session addressed the motivational phase of HAPA by introducing goal setting
and action planning, with activities to enhance both action self-efficacy and coping self-effi-
cacy. The final session focused on maintenance of the changed behavior, an important part of
HAPA, by addressing relapse, recovery self-efficacy and action control. Each session lasted
between one and one and a half hours.
Session 1: Promoting motivation/intention to change. This session began with an ice-
breaker, making and tasting alcohol free cocktails, which replicated the features of a drinking
session but demonstrated having fun without alcohol. Using MI based techniques [50] the
women were encouraged to explore the benefits and the adverse effects of getting drunk and
the subjective importance of the drinking experience [51].
These discussions were followed by a decisional balance exercise [52]. The aim was to
develop discrepancy between the anticipated outcomes of individual and group heavy drink-
ing, such as having fun and group socialising, and the negatively valenced outcomes such as
having a hangover or being unable to remember what happened the night before. This helped
generate change talk about drinking, both at an individual and group level. The normative
beliefs (perceptions of significant others’ beliefs) underpinning subjective norms (perceived
social pressure to conform with others’ beliefs) were explored [45]. Exploration of intra-group
variability in attitudes towards heavy drinking was intended to help overcome false consensus
on high levels of alcohol consumption [53]. Action self-efficacy [44] was addressed through an
exercise to assess confidence in being able to make changes to current drinking patterns.
Session 2: Setting goals, developing implementation intentions, and action plans. To
develop the theme of looking good with confidence, a makeup demonstration was incorpo-
rated into this session. The group’s previous discussion about their drinking patterns was
reviewed and the advantages of setting goals to achieve behavior change was introduced [54].
Guided discussion and information on goal setting was included to support translation of
motivational readiness into specific goal intentions. The features of suitable goal selection were
explained and the women were guided through the process of identifying and setting goals
(SMART goals) [54], while the group discussions explored whether a suitable goal could be
identified and negotiated at a group level. Identifying a group goal has the advantage that pos-
sible conflict between multiple individual goals operating within a single group context is
avoided. The groups then devised action plans specifying ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘how’ they would
undertake specific actions to help them achieve their goal [44]. Action and maintenance self-
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 5 / 17
efficacy encourage initiation and persistence of efforts to attain goals. Action self-efficacy was
addressed by identifying barriers and facilitators to reduced drinking and discussing the
importance of the group goal and confidence in attaining it. The importance of and confidence
in enacting the group action plan was reviewed to strengthen maintenance self-efficacy.
Session 3: Coping plans, relapse prevention and habit formation. A demonstration of
self-administered relaxation techniques provided an introduction to the session on coping
planning and relapse prevention. The women discussed the goal they set in the previous ses-
sion and were given feedback and encouragement on their attempts to implement it. Reflecting
on and discussing experiences of goal pursuit and action plans was included to reinforce exist-
ing goals and plans and provide an opportunity to refine these where necessary [55].
The discussion then focused on relapse prevention and maintenance of reduced consump-
tion by generating coping plans and using problem-solving techniques to maintain healthy lev-
els of drinking. Risky situations, when binge drinking was likely to occur, were identified and
discussed by group members who were encouraged to identify specific actions that could pre-
vent a lapse from occurring (i.e. if x occurs then I will do y) [56].
Finally, to promote maintenance of changes in behavior, positive discussion was encour-
aged through focusing on successes (no matter how small). Discussions drew attention to
desirable outcomes which had either been achieved or had the potential to be achieved e.g.
weight loss, financial gain, fewer hangovers or improved family relationships. Women also dis-
cussed and identified possible rewards that would encourage maintenance of change.
Delivery of the intervention. The group interventions were delivered by trained lay
peers. The lay peers were trained in informal small group sessions with an emphasis on practis-
ing the skills required to deliver the intervention. This was supported by a user-friendly man-
ual which provided a step by step guide on all tasks to be performed. The training covered:
questionnaire completion; introduction to techniques from Motivational Interviewing; deci-
sional balance and change talk; goal setting, action planning, and habit formation. Role play
formed an important part of the training. All of the intervention sessions were audio recorded
and assessed for fidelity of delivery using a checklist. Feedback was given to the lay peers by a
member of the research team (EDD) after every session.
Baseline assessment
Baseline questionnaires were self-completed by the participants at the beginning of the first
session. Responses to the questions were confidential and were not divulged to the group. Data
collected included age, education attainment, marital status and employment status. The
Timeline Follow Back (TLFB) [57] was used to measure alcohol consumption during the past
30 days. The TLFB interview is a well-validated and reliable self-report method used to mea-
sure alcohol consumption. The Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST) [58] was completed to
assess the extent of hazardous and harmful drinking.
Process evaluation
Engagement with the intervention was assessed by inspecting data generated during the three
intervention sessions. Flip charts were used to record and summarise group decisions made
during every session (e.g. decisional balance, goal setting and action planning). These charts
were retained for use in subsequent sessions to ensure continuity across the three sessions. The
data from the charts were transcribed, then grouped into themes and coded to provide fre-
quencies of the decisions taken by the women.
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 6 / 17
Follow up
Women were followed up four months after the intervention. Several techniques to promote
retention were put in place [59]. The intervention sessions were organised to be convenient for
participants, both in location and timing. Participants were given travel expenses and were
entered into a prize draw on completion of the study. To maximise follow up, several methods
of contact (mobile phone, postal address and email address) were obtained. Multiple attempts
at contact were made during the follow up phase of the study. Where possible, groups of
women returned for a face to face session to complete follow up questionnaires. When this
was not possible, telephone interviews were conducted or the questionnaire was emailed or
posted to the participants. Questions on alcohol consumption asked at baseline were repeated
at follow up.
Assessment of acceptability of the study. Participants completed a post-study evaluation
questionnaire to assess the acceptability of the study. Participants were asked whether they felt
they had benefitted from taking part, whether they had discussed the study with anyone, apart
from members of the study group and whether they would recommend the study to others.
Participants were encouraged to given reasons for their responses to the yes/no questions.
Results
Recruitment
In total, 123 individuals contacted the study team in response to the advertising campaign. Of
these 33 responded to the radio adverts, 8 to the poster panels on buses, 10 to the University
intranet adverts, 10 to the Facebook page and 30 expressed an interest when approached by
researchers on foot. A further 8 women heard about the study by word of mouth. One person
contacted the researchers in response to seeing a poster. Finally, 23 women responded using
an SMS short code (this method did not identify how individuals found out about the study).
The study researcher (EDD) attempted to contact all of these individuals. From these, the tar-
get of 24 friendship groups of women were successfully recruited.
Baseline characteristics
The 24 groups included 97 participants. The number of participants per group ranged from 2
to 8, with a median of 4 women in each group. One group did not meet the entry criterion of
having the minimum number of three participants. At recruitment the group included three
women, but one failed to attend the first session. The lay person who conducted the interven-
tion session took a decision to proceed with the two women who did attend. It would have
been unfair to turn the two women away. As part of the determining the feasibility of the study
a decision was taken to keep this group in the study.
Women of different ages, marital status and socioeconomic status were recruited (Table 1).
More than two thirds were under 25 years of age and almost 60% were in a relationship. The
Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation [40], was used to assess socio-economic status. The
recruitment strategy achieved its aim of covering a spectrum of socio-economic status to
increase generalisability. Although participants were recruited from all areas within the city of
Dundee, Scotland, more were recruited from disadvantaged areas. Approximately half of the
participants were college students which is similar to all women in the age group [60].
Drinking patterns at baseline. The predominant pattern of alcohol consumption was of
infrequent, but heavy, drinking sessions (Table 2). Mean alcohol consumption on the heaviest
drinking day in the previous 30 days was 18.1 units (SD 11.9), but more than half of the
women had 25 or more alcohol free days in this period. Mean consumption over the previous
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 7 / 17
30 days was 59 units of alcohol (SD 46.6). More than 75% of the women were classed as haz-
ardous drinkers, as measured by FAST [58].
Engagement with intervention components
Fidelity of delivery of the intervention was assessed by reviewing the data from the flip charts
which indicated that the women had understood and carried out key tasks in the behavior
change process (S1 Table). For session 1, all of the groups identified pros and cons of being
very drunk and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of reducing their drinking. How-
ever, on the final task, rating the importance of cutting down and confidence in their ability to
cut down, nine groups did not record scores. Four tasks were assessed for session 2. More than
90% of groups set goals and made action plans to reduce alcohol consumption. All but one
group went further and identified barriers to changing drinking behavior and facilitators to
achieving their goal. Recording of the importance of and confidence in their ability to achieve
goals was less well done, with 17 of the 24 groups achieving this task. Two groups failed to
attend the final intervention session, but all of the groups who attended completed the tasks
(identifying high risk drinking situations, how to cope in these situations and possible rewards
for sticking to their goals. Receipt of the intervention was then assessed by analysing the con-
tent of the data on the relevant components of the intervention for each session.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants.
Factor Number of participants N = 97
Participants’ age (years)
18–19 21
20–24 45
25–29 14
� 30 12
Age not given 3
Relationship status
Single 31
In a relationship 59
Relationship status not given 7
Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) quintile
1 (most socially disadvantaged) 22
2 26
3 15
4 21
5 11
Employment status
Employed (full time) 17
Employed (part time) 41
Unemployed 35
Other 4
Highest educational attainment
University degree (attained or currently studying for) 51
Vocational qualification/further training 24
High school 21
Current college students 55
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434.t001
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 8 / 17
Intention formation (session 1). All but one of the 24 groups identified many more
advantages than disadvantages of reducing drinking. Perceived benefits of reducing binge
drinking included: losing weight; having fewer regrets after a night out; not waking up next to
a stranger; having more energy the next day; and saving money. Disadvantages of reducing
included the fear of having less fun on a night out or feeling isolated and self-conscious when
not drinking as much as their friends.
Goal setting (session 2). Twenty-two of the 24 groups set a group goal to reduce drinking.
Most of the group goals involved drinking fewer shots or restricting pre-loading activities
(Table 3). Importantly, the plans were detailed and specific to each group’s drinking patterns.
Thus, while one group set a goal to avoid drinking shots completely, another group agreed to
restrict the number of shots consumed. Techniques to reduce pre-loading included: measuring
Table 3. Goals set by the groups to reduce drinking.
Group goals to reduce drinking Number of groups�
Avoid or restrict the number of shots consumed on a night out 7
Monitor or restrict amount of alcohol consumed during pre-drinking sessions 7
Monitor or restrict amount of alcohol consumed when out drinking 4
Restrict money taken on nights out 2
Plan alcohol free nights out 2
Restrict amount of alcohol taken to house parties 1
�two groups did not set a group goal, one group set two group goals
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434.t003
Table 2. Drinking at baseline.
Factor Baseline
N = 97
Alcohol consumption Units (SD)
Mean consumption in past 30 days 59.0 (46.6)
Mean consumption on heaviest drinking
day
18.1 (11.9)
Number of binge drinking days in previous 30 days (>6 units on
one occasion)
Number of participants (%)
<2 days 26 (26.8)
2–3 days 29 (29.9)
4–5 days 23 (23.7)
6–7 days 10 (10.3)
� 8 days 9 (9.3)
Total consumption in previous 30 days
0–24 units 25 (25.8)
25–49 units 26 (26.8)
50–99 units 31 (32.0)
100–149 units 9 (9.3)
� 150 units 6 (6.2)
Number of alcohol free days in the previous 30 days
<15 days 2 (2.1)
15–19 days 6 (6.2)
20–24 days 33 (34.0)
25–30 days 56 (57.7)
Hazardous drinkers (Positive FAST) 74 (76.3)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434.t002
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 9 / 17
drinks instead of free-pouring; and planning to reduce the amount of alcohol brought to pre-
loading sessions. Action plans on how to achieve these goals were negotiated between the
friends. Participants wrote down when; where; how; and with whom they would change their
drinking.
Maintaining changes (session 3). The women identified many high risk situations
including special occasions and celebrations, stress, boredom, arguments and disappoint-
ments, and pressure from friends. The group members then negotiated how to cope in differ-
ent situations. For example one group suggested ‘if celebrating, then we’ll keep in mind we wantto remember the night; only take £20 out, leave bank card at home’.
To encourage maintenance of reduced drinking, the groups discussed how to reward them-
selves when they managed to stick to their goals. They were encouraged to make separate lists
for rewards that involved spending money (affordable by money saved) and those that did not
cost money. Suggestions differed according to the composition of the group, but common
ones were shopping for shoes and clothes, visits to the cinema or music gigs, meals out or holi-
days. Free rewards included movie nights at home, cooking together, walks and hikes and
pamper nights.
Retention of participants
Participants were followed up four months after the intervention was delivered. Question-
naires were returned from 84 of the 97 participants (87%). Only one complete group could not
be contacted. Comparing the difference in consumption levels between baseline and follow up
showed a reduction of 6.8 UK units (SD 45.0) in mean consumption during the thirty day
period leading up to the interviews. The reduction in mean consumption on heaviest drinking
day was 2.1 UK units (SD12.2).
Post study evaluation
Participants were initially asked to give their main reason for taking part to assess the effective-
ness of the marketing strategy (S2 Table). Thirty-one women said that the study sounded inter-
esting and a further 18 mentioned a specific interest in alcohol; 30 thought that it sounded like
fun, and 8 wanted to help out with a research study (some women gave more than one
reason):
‘It sounded like a fun way to spend a few hours when we were stressed about fourth year’ [at
university]
‘I thought it was a good idea to help out for the study and also to think about how exces-
sively we drink sometimes’
The majority of women gave positive responses to questions assessing the acceptability of
study. Almost 70% of the participants (57 women) who were followed up reported that they
had discussed the study with others (friends, colleagues and family members), while 76 (90%)
said they would recommend the study to other women.
In response to a question on the perceived benefits of taking part in the study, 71 partici-
pants (85%) said they benefitted and gave reasons why. Thirty five women reported that the
study had raised awareness about their alcohol consumption:
‘The sessions made me more aware of not only my own but my peers (especially girls)
drinking habits. When we discussed what was involved before a night out in the “getting
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 10 / 17
ready” process I was unaware of how much my friends and I actually drank before actually
heading out’.
Another perceived benefit (for 13 women) was that they were more likely to reflect on their
drinking after taking part in the study:
‘I feel that I have realised that limiting what I drink can be beneficial to how I feel about
myself. If I don’t drink then I don’t have a horrendous hangover and that I feel I have more
control’
Setting group goals and action plans were key components of the behavior change strategy.
Sixteen women reported that this session had been particularly useful:
‘Hadn’t heard of SMART goals before. Easy to set big goals but hard to achieve. More
appropriate to make small steps’.
Women were asked whether they had learned any useful techniques during the study.
Many related tips on how to avoid becoming very drunk such as:
‘Saying no. Finding other ways to socialise and have fun. Thinking healthy. Taking more
pride in myself.’
‘I’ve realised that it’s important to reward yourself for setting goals and achieving them, and
doing something different like a mocktail class with friends can be really good fun’
The role of the friendship group was emphasised in the study evaluation. Women realised,
that at the beginning of the study, they were not aware of what group members felt about
drinking, and were unclear about their group’s motivation for drinking:
‘Interesting to hear everyone’s thoughts on drinking as it is not something that is usually
discussed’
‘Being honest about our drinking habits and how it impacts on our lives’
Some women reported gaining confidence in being able to refuse drinks when they were
with the group:
‘Being able to talk to my friends when I don’t want to drink and them accepting I’m moni-
toring how much I drink’
The support of the group was important, particularly in implementing goals and action
plans:
‘Being part of a group aiming for the same goal makes it more attainable’
‘Definitely follow the goal we set. A lot easier to do when everyone you are out with has the
same goal. A bit of peer pressure NOT to do shots now which I never thought would
happen’
The perception of having fun endured to the end of the study, but many participants also
reported that the experience had been useful and interesting, and in some cases, brought the
group closer together:
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 11 / 17
‘I think combining the sessions with fun activities was definitely important as it encouraged
us to find new ways of spending time together rather than drinking’
‘Benefited our friendship, discussed new activities to do together’
Discussion
This study has demonstrated that friendship groups of young women who engage in heavy
binge drinking can be recruited to an alcohol intervention study. The use of a novel method of
delivery, fun activities that provide a platform for behavior change activities, may have encour-
aged participation. The intervention was successfully delivered with almost all groups of
women setting group goals and making action plans to reduce their drinking. Process evalua-
tion indicated high levels of engagement with components of the behavior change strategy and
retention was high. The post study evaluation showed high acceptability of study methods, and
highlighted the important role of the friendship group in reducing hazardous drinking.
This is the first study to report recruiting and intervening on natural drinking groups in an
alcohol intervention. Alcohol interventions have been delivered to groups of female students,
but these did not involve natural drinking groups [61, 62]. Participating as part of a friendship
group appeared to reinforce feelings of trust and belonging, such that implementation inten-
tions and SMART goals were agreed at a group level [56]. This may explain why participants
freely discussed their heavy drinking and made group decisions to modify their drinking hab-
its. They reported that working as a group helped in changing individuals’ drinking behavior.
This confirms previous research showing that capitalising on support systems that exist within
small groups could increase intervention effectiveness [31]. These findings suggest that group
interventions may have great promise in tackling binge drinking by young women.
A strength of the study was the ability to monitor engagement with components of the
behavior change strategy in real-time. The flip charts were used as part of the intervention
delivery to record the pros and cons of being drunk, the benefits of moderated drinking, goal
setting, action and coping planning, and maintenance strategies. These also provide unobtru-
sively collected real-time data on the participants’ responses to the intervention components.
They demonstrated that the women successfully carried out key tasks in the behavior change
process (e.g. implementation intentions [56] and monitoring goal progress [55]). This pro-
vides a powerful method of process evaluation, an approach recommended for studies of com-
plex interventions [63].
A high follow-up rate (87%) was achieved, which is higher than many alcohol brief inter-
vention trials [64]. It was not possible to bring all the groups together at follow up but the
women were amenable to be interviewed by telephone or to complete and return the question-
naire. In a full randomised controlled trial it would helpful to obtain alternative contact details
at baseline e.g. the telephone number or e-mail address of a parent or significant other. In
addition, keeping in touch during the follow up period by occasional text messages could give
an opportunity to request new address details and to maintain interest in the study.
A possible weakness of this study is that the time period over which the intervention was
delivered. Study sessions were held approximately one week apart. Some groups reported that
they had insufficient time to implement their plans to reduce binge drinking before returning
for the third session. For the full trial the intervention should be held over a longer period,
four to six weeks, with a longer period between session 2 (setting goals) and session 3 (behavior
maintenance).
This feasibility study did not have a comparator group. Its purpose was to determine
whether women could be recruited and retained in a novel group intervention study on
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 12 / 17
alcohol, whether they would engage with the intervention and find the study methods accept-
able, and whether the proposed outcome measures could be measured [65, 66]. Although a fea-
sibility study should not attempt to estimate the effectiveness of the intervention, even if a
control arm is present [65], there are other benefits of including one [67]. For example, the
inclusion of a control group would have given an indication of retention in both groups in a
full trial.
Conclusions
This study has shown that targeting natural drinking groups of young women provides a
unique opportunity to reduce binge drinking. The use of the fun-based activities aided recruit-
ment and promoted engagement with the intervention. The intervention successfully
prompted the young women to set goals and make action plans. This approach has great
potential, particularly for groups who are unaware that they are drinking at hazardous levels.
This intervention should be tested in a full randomised controlled trial.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Process evaluation (Flip chart data).
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Post study evaluation.
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Women & alcohol data (SPSS.sav).
(SAV)
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the women who participated so willingly in the study. We would also like to
thank the lay peers who delivered the intervention (Ailsa Moir, Sarah Rennie, Anastasiya
Adashkevich, Josephine Jones and Caitlin Delaney). Their enthusiasm, dedication and hard
work made the study a success.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Linda Irvine, Iain K. Crombie, Vivien Swanson, Rosaline Barbour.
Data curation: Linda Irvine, Elena D. Dimova, Ambrose J. Melson, Tracey M. Fraser.
Formal analysis: Linda Irvine, Elena D. Dimova, Tracey M. Fraser.
Funding acquisition: Linda Irvine, Iain K. Crombie, Vivien Swanson, Rosaline Barbour, Peter
M. Rice, Sheila Allan.
Investigation: Linda Irvine, Iain K. Crombie, Elena D. Dimova, Ambrose J. Melson.
Methodology: Linda Irvine, Iain K. Crombie, Vivien Swanson, Ambrose J. Melson, Tracey M.
Fraser, Rosaline Barbour, Peter M. Rice, Sheila Allan.
Project administration: Linda Irvine, Elena D. Dimova, Tracey M. Fraser.
Resources: Linda Irvine, Iain K. Crombie, Elena D. Dimova, Ambrose J. Melson, Tracey M.
Fraser.
Supervision: Linda Irvine.
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 13 / 17
Validation: Linda Irvine, Iain K. Crombie, Elena D. Dimova, Ambrose J. Melson.
Visualization: Linda Irvine, Iain K. Crombie, Elena D. Dimova, Ambrose J. Melson.
Writing – original draft: Linda Irvine, Iain K. Crombie.
Writing – review & editing: Linda Irvine, Iain K. Crombie, Vivien Swanson, Elena D.
Dimova, Ambrose J. Melson, Tracey M. Fraser, Rosaline Barbour, Peter M. Rice, Sheila
Allan.
References1. Health & Social Care Information Centre. Health Survey for England—2012. London: 2013.
2. Home Office. The Government’s Alcohol Strategy. London: UK Parliament, 2012.
3. Twigg L, Moon G. The spatial and temporal development of binge drinking in England 2001–2009: An
observational study. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 91:162–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.023
PubMed PMID: WOS:000322858100023. PMID: 23608600
4. Nazareth I, Walker C, Ridolfi A, Aluoja A, Bellon J, Geerlings M, et al. Heavy episodic drinking in
Europe: a cross section study in primary care in six European countries. Alcohol Alcohol. 2011; 46
(5):600–6. Epub 2011/07/08. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agr078 PMID: 21733834.
5. Bardsley D, Calder A, Currie E, Gray L, Hill S, Leyland AH, et al. The Scottish Health Survey 2016 Edin-
burgh: The Scottish Government, 2017.
6. Engineer R, Phillips A, Thompson J, Nicholls J. Home Office Research Study 262. Drunk and disor-
derly: a qualitative study of binge drinking among 18- to 24-year-olds. London: Home Office Research,
Development and Statistics Directorate, 2003.
7. Hingson R, Heeren T, Winter M, Wechsler H. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity
among U.S. college students ages 18–24: changes from 1998 to 2001. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;
26:259–79. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144652 PMID: 15760289
8. Townshend JM, Kambouropoulos N, Griffin A, Hunt FJ, Milani RM. Binge Drinking, Reflection Impulsiv-
ity, and Unplanned Sexual Behavior: Impaired Decision- Making in Young Social Drinkers. Alcoholism-
Clinical and Experimental Research. 2014; 38(4):1143–50. PubMed PMID: WOS:000333948400029.
9. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Alcohol consumption and the outcomes of preg-
nancy. RCOG Statement No 5. London: 2006.
10. Tough SC, Clarke M, Clarren S. Preventing fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Preconception counseling
and diagnosis help. Can Fam Physician. 2005; 51:1199–201. PMID: 16190170
11. Anderson AE, Hure AJ, Forder PM, Powers J, Kay-Lambkin FJ, Loxton DJ. Risky Drinking Patterns Are
Being Continued into Pregnancy: A Prospective Cohort Study. PLoS One. 2014; 9(1). PubMed PMID:
WOS:000330235100147.
12. Skagerstrom J, Chang G, Nilsen P. Predictors of Drinking During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.
Journal of Womens Health. 2011; 20(6):901–13. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2010.2216 PubMed PMID:
WOS:000291590700010. PMID: 21671775
13. Ethen MK, Ramadhani TA, Scheuerle AE, Canfield MA, Wyszynski DF, Druschel CM, et al. Alcohol
Consumption by Women Before and During Pregnancy. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2009; 13
(2):274–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-008-0328-2 PubMed PMID: WOS:000263081300014.
PMID: 18317893
14. Seaman P, Ikegwuonu T. Drinking to belong. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2010.
15. Szmigin I, Griffin C, Mistral W, Bengry-Howell A, Weale L, Hackley C. Re-framing ’binge drinking’ as cal-
culated hedonism-Empirical evidence from the UK. Int J Drug Policy. 2008 19:359–66. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.08.009 PMID: 17981452
16. Lange JE, Devos-Comby L, Moore RS, Daniel J, Homer K. Collegiate natural drinking groups: Charac-
teristics, structure, and processes. Addiction Research & Theory. 2011; 19(4):312–22. https://doi.org/
10.3109/16066359.2010.507895 PubMed PMID: WOS:000291809900003.
17. MacNeela P, Bredin O. Keeping Your Balance Freedom and Regulation in Female University Students’
Drinking Practices. J Health Psychol. 2011; 16(2):284–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105310372977
PubMed PMID: WOS:000288117700009. PMID: 20733013
18. Lange JE, Johnson MB, Reed MB. Drivers within natural drinking groups: An exploration of role selec-
tion, motivation, and group influence on driver sobriety. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2006; 32(2):261–74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990500479597 PubMed PMID: WOS:000237164400008. PMID:
16595327
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 14 / 17
19. Niland P, Lyons AC, Goodwin I, Hutton F. "Everyone can loosen up and get a bit of a buzz on": young
adults, alcohol and friendship practices. Int J Drug Policy. 2013; 24(6):530–7. Epub 2013/07/23. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.05.013 PMID: 23867049.
20. MacLean S. Alcohol and the constitution of friendship for young adults. Sociology. 2016; 50(1):93–108.
21. Kaner EF, Dickinson HO, Beyer F, Pienaar E, Schlesinger C, Campbell F, et al. The effectiveness of
brief alcohol interventions in primary care settings: A systematic review. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009 28
(3):301–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00071.x PMID: 19489992
22. O’Donnell A, Anderson P, Newbury-Birch D, Schulte B, Schmidt C, Reimer J, et al. The Impact of Brief
Alcohol Interventions in Primary Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Reviews. Alcohol Alcohol. 2014;
49(1):66–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agt170 PubMed PMID: WOS:000329061600012. PMID:
24232177
23. Bien TH, Miller WR, Tonigan JS. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a review. Addiction. 1993; 88
(3):315–35. Epub 1993/03/01. PMID: 8461850.
24. Raistrick D, Heather N, Godfrey C. Review of the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems. Lon-
don: The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, 2006.
25. Jonas DE, Garbutt JC, Amick HR, Brown JM, Brownley KA, Council CL, et al. Behavioral Counseling
After Screening for Alcohol Misuse in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for the US
Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157(9):645–54. PubMed PMID:
WOS:000310783300005. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-9-201211060-00544 PMID:
23007881
26. Samson JE, Tanner-Smith EE. Single-Session Alcohol Interventions for Heavy Drinking College Stu-
dents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2015; 76(4):530–43. Epub 2015/
06/23. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.530 PMID: 26098028; PubMed Central PMCID:
PMCPmc4495071.
27. Huh D, Mun EY, Larimer ME, White HR, Ray AE, Rhew IC, et al. Brief motivational interventions for col-
lege student drinking may not be as powerful as we think: an individual participant-level data meta-anal-
ysis. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015; 39(5):919–31. Epub 2015/04/16. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.12714
PMID: 25872599; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4502982.
28. Carey KB, Scott-Sheldon LA, Garey L, Elliott JC, Carey MP. Alcohol interventions for mandated college
students: A meta-analytic review. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016; 84(7):619–32. Epub 2016/04/22.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040275 PMID: 27100126; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4919145.
29. Johnston KL, White KM. Binge-drinking: A test of the role of group norms in the theory of planned
behaviour. Psychol Health. 2003; 18(1):63–77. PubMed PMID: WOS:000181305200004.
30. Neighbors C, Lee CM, Lewis MA, Fossos N, Larimer ME. Are social norms the best predictor of out-
comes among heavy-drinking college students? J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2007 68(4):556–65. PMID:
17568961
31. Previte J, Fry ML, Drennan J, Hasan SFE. Friends or foes: Group influence effects on moderate drink-
ing behaviors. Journal of Business Research. 2015; 68(10):2146–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2015.03.014 PubMed PMID: WOS:000360516300014.
32. LaBrie JW, Hummer JF, Neighbors C, Pedersen ER. Live interactive group-specific normative feedback
reduces misperceptions and drinking in college students: a randomized cluster trial. Psychol Addict
Behav. 2008; 22(1):141–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.22.1.141 PMID: 18298241
33. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Mitchie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex
interventions: new guidance. London: Medical Research Council, 2008.
34. Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, et al. How we design feasibility
Studies. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 36(5):452–7. PubMed PMID: WOS:000265315200013. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 PMID: 19362699
35. Office for National Statistics. Adult drinking habits in Great Britain: 2005 to 2016. London: Office for
National Statistics, 2017.
36. Southern DA, Lewis S, Maxwell CJ, Dunn JR, Noseworthy TW, Corbett G, et al. Sampling ’hard-to-
reach’ populations in health research: yield from a study targeting Americans living in Canada. BMC
Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8(57).
37. Schoenfeld ER, Greene JM, Wu SY, O’Leary E, Forte F, Leske MC. Recruiting participants for commu-
nity-based research: the Diabetic Retinopathy Awareness Program. Ann Epidemiol. 2000; 10(7):432–
40. PMID: 11023622
38. UyBico SJ, Pavel S, Gross CP. Recruiting vulnerable populations into research: a systematic review of
recruitment interventions. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 22(6):852–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-
0126-3 PMID: 17375358
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 15 / 17
39. Graham AL, Milner P, Saul JE, Pfaff L. Online advertising as a public health and recruitment tool: com-
parison of different media campaigns to increase demand for smoking cessation interventions. J Med
Internet Res. 2008 10(5):e50. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1001 PMID: 19073542
40. Office of the Chief Statistician. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 Technical Report Scottish
Executive, 2004.
41. Foster JH, Ferguson C. Alcohol ’Pre-loading’: A Review of the Literature. Alcohol Alcohol. 2014; 49
(2):213–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agt135 PubMed PMID: WOS:000332248900015. PMID:
24049152
42. Ritchie J, Lewis J, McNaughton Nicholls C, Ormston R, editors. Qualitative Research Practice. 2 ed.
London: Sage; 2014.
43. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG,
editors. Analyzing Qualitative Data. New York: Routledge; 1994.
44. Schwarzer R. Modeling health behaviour change: How to predict and modify the adoption and mainte-
nance of health behaviours. Appl Psychol. 2008; 57(1):1–29.
45. Ajzen I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50(2):179–221.
46. Michie S, Whittington C, Hamoudi Z, Zarnani F, Tober G, West R. Identification of behaviour change
techniques to reduce excessive alcohol consumption. Addiction. 2012; 107(8):1431–40. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03845.x PubMed PMID: WOS:000306218000015. PMID: 22340523
47. Sobell LC, Sobell MB. Group Therapy for Substance Use Disorders: A Motivational Cognitive-behav-
ioral Approach. New York: Guilford Publications; 2011.
48. Bertholet N, Palfai T, Gaume J, Daeppen J-B, Saitz R. Do Brief Alcohol Motivational Interventions Work
Like We Think They Do? Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research. 2014; 38(3):853–9. PubMed
PMID: WOS:000332758200030.
49. Borsari B, Apodaca TR, Jackson KM, Mastroleo NR, Magill M, Barnett NP, et al. In-session processes
of brief motivational interventions in two trials with mandated college students. J Consult Clin Psychol.
2015; 83(1):56–67. Epub 2014/08/12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037635 PMID: 25111429; PubMed
Central PMCID: PMCPmc4323774.
50. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing. Helping people change. 3rd ed. New York: The Guil-
ford Press; 2013.
51. Dupree CH, Magill M, Apodaca TR. The pros and cons of drinking: A qualitative analysis of young adult
drinking discussions within motivational interviewing. Addiction Research & Theory. 2016; 24(1):40–7.
https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2015.1060966 PubMed PMID: WOS:000368511400006.
52. Miller WR, Rose GS. Motivational Interviewing and Decisional Balance: Contrasting Responses to Cli-
ent Ambivalence. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2015; 43(2):129–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1352465813000878 PubMed PMID: WOS:000349112000001. PMID: 24229732
53. Ross L, Greene D, House P. False consensus effect—egocentric bias in social-perception and attribu-
tion processes. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1977; 13(3):279–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)
90049-x PubMed PMID: WOS:A1977DD62100007.
54. Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year
odyssey. Am Psychol. 2002; 57(9):705–17. Epub 2002/09/20. PMID: 12237980.
55. Harkin B, Webb TL, Chang BP, Prestwich A, Conner M, Kellar I, et al. Does monitoring goal progress
promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull. 2016; 142
(2):198–229. Epub 2015/10/20. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025 PMID: 26479070.
56. Hagger MS, Luszczynska A, de Wit J, Benyamini Y, Burkert S, Chamberland PE, et al. Implementation
intention and planning interventions in Health Psychology: Recommendations from the Synergy Expert
Group for research and practice. Psychol Health. 2016; 31(7):814–39. Epub 2016/02/20. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08870446.2016.1146719 PMID: 26892502.
57. Sobell L. Alcohol Timeline Follow Back (TLFB). In: Allen J, Wilson V, editors. Assessing alcohol prob-
lems A guide for clinicians and researchers 2 ed. Bethesda: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism; 2003.
58. Health Development Agency and University of Wales College of Medicine. Manual for the Fast Alcohol
Screening Test (FAST). London: Health Development Agency, 2002.
59. Brueton VC, Tierney JF, Stenning S, Meredith S, Harding S, Nazareth I, et al. Strategies to improve
retention in randomised trials: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2014; 4
(2). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003821 PubMed PMID: WOS:000334459100012. PMID:
24496696
60. Scottish Funding Council. Higher Education Students and Qualifiers at Scottish Institutions 2013–14.
Edinburgh: Scottish Funding Council, 2015.
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 16 / 17
61. LaBrie JW, Thompson AD, Huchting K, Lac A, Buckley K. A group Motivational Interviewing intervention
reduces drinking and alcohol-related negative consequences in adjudicated college women. Addict
Behav. 2007 32(11):2549–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.05.014 PMID: 17628347
62. LaBrie JW, Huchting K, Tawalbeh S, Pedersen ER, Thompson AD, Shelesky K, et al. A Randomized
motivational enhancement prevention group reduces drinking and alcohol consequences in first-year
college women. Psychol Addict Behav. 2008; 22(1):149–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.22.1.
149 PubMed PMID: WOS:000253300800017. PMID: 18298242
63. Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, W H, et al. Process evaluation of complex interven-
tions: UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. MRC Population Health Sciences Research Net-
work; 2015.
64. Kaner EF, Dickinson HO, Beyer F, Campbell F, Schlesinger C, Heather N, et al. Effectiveness of brief
alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007,
Issue 2 Art No: CD004148 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858CD004148pub3 2007.
65. Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good
practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004; 10(2):307–12. PubMed PMID: WOS:000221867100019. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.2002.384.doc.x PMID: 15189396
66. Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R, Cheng J, Ismaila A, Rios LP, et al. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why
and how. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-10 PubMed PMID:
WOS:000274680600001.
67. Leon AC, Davis LL, Kraemer HC. The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. J Psy-
chiatr Res. 2011; 45(5):626–9. PubMed PMID: WOS:000291171100008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpsychires.2010.10.008 PMID: 21035130
Group alcohol intervention for women
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193434 March 1, 2018 17 / 17
